cannabisnews.com: High Court To Hear Oakland Pot Case





High Court To Hear Oakland Pot Case
Posted by CN Staff on June 29, 2004 at 13:07:26 PT
By Elise Banducci, Mercury News
Source: Mercury News
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether people who smoke marijuana under a doctor's direction are exempt from a U.S. law that bans the drug.Justices will hear the government's appeal of a case won last year by two California women who say marijuana is the only way they can find relief from their painful medical conditions.
In the recent past the high court has tended to side with state and local concerns in some clashes with the federal government. But in 2001, the high court decided for the federal government in another medicinal marijuana case.Eight years years ago, California voters approved a medicinal marijuana law that allows patients to smoke marijuana under a doctor's orders. Eight other states have enacted similar laws. But federal drug enforcement agents have raided pot clubs that sell medicinal marijuana.In December, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that prosecuting medicinal marijuana use under the federal Controlled Substances Act is unconstitutional in states that allow use of the drug for medical purposes, as long as the pot isn't sold, transported across state lines or used for non-medicinal purposes.The appeals court ruled that medicinal marijuana use is distinct from drug trafficking. But in its appeal, the Bush administration wrote that the federal government ``controls all manufacturing, possession, and distribution'' of any drug listed by the Controlled Substances Act.``That goal cannot be achieved if the intrastate manufacturing, possession, and distribution of a drug may occur without any federal regulation,'' the government wrote.While no single case will settle the divisive issue of medicinal marijuana, experts said a ruling from the high court could move the country a significant step closer to deciding who has the final say -- states or the federal government -- over use of the drug for pain and illness.``It's important in terms of recognizing some limitations to the federal power to flatly prohibit any medical use of marijuana,'' said Santa Clara University law Professor Gerald Uelmen, who represented an Oakland pot cooperative that was on the losing end of a 2001 Supreme Court decision.In that case, justices ruled that medicinal pot programs that distribute the drug in California and other states could not sidestep federal prosecution under a ``medical necessity'' exception.Uelmen said the current case before the Supreme Court, Ashcroft vs. Raich, is a good case from the perspective of medicinal marijuana supporters.``It is such a sympathetic and compelling set of facts,'' he said. ``You have two very sick people who get no relief from traditional medicine and rely on medical marijuana just to get through the day.''Uelmen said Raich could also settle the pending case of a Santa Cruz County couple whom he represents. Their cannabis cooperative was raided in 2002.The two women in Raich are Angel McClary Raich and Diane Monson. The two had sued Attorney General John Ashcroft, asking for a court order letting them smoke, grow or obtain marijuana without fearing federal prosecution.Raich, a 38-year-old Oakland resident, suffers from numerous ailments, including a brain tumor, a seizure disorder and life-threatening wasting syndrome, and is allergic to almost all pharmaceutical medicines. She uses marijuana every two hours to control her pain, keep her moving and help her eat. She says she would die without the drug.On Monday, she said she was both excited and nervous at the prospect of her case going before the Supreme Court.``The case itself was designed from the beginning with the Supreme Court in mind,'' said Raich. ``But at the same time I'm very nervous because my life is at stake.''Federal officials declined to comment Monday, saying the government's brief lays out its arguments in the matter.While supporters of medicinal marijuana said they were optimistic Monday, experts said they will have a tough job before the Supreme Court.``This looks like another case where they are concerned that the 9th Circuit may have gone too far,'' said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor and former Justice Department lawyer. ``But it's hard to say. More and more states are interested in legalizing some kind of medicinal marijuana, and the political pressure continues to build.''Whichever way the court decides, it surely will not resolve the issue.``This is just one shot in a long battle,'' said Little. ``And that battle is mostly political, not judicial.''The Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times contributed to this report. Note: Justice Department appealed victory for two ailing women.Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA)Author: Elise Banducci, Mercury NewsPublished:  Tuesday, June 29, 2004Copyright: 2004 San Jose Mercury NewsContact: letters sjmercury.comWebsite: http://www.mercurynews.com/Related Articles & Web Sites:Raich vs. Ashcroft http://www.angeljustice.org/Medical Marijuana Information Linkshttp://freedomtoexhale.com/medical.htmTop Court Will Take Oakland Pot Case http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19096.shtmlSupreme Court Justices To Decide MMJ Disputehttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19094.shtmlMarijuana Backers Pleased by Justices' Decisionhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread19093.shtml 
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Post Comment